The "article", however, does paint all of science with a rather broad brush. This is one(1) incidence in an open-access, pay-to-get-published social science journal with an impact factor likely approaching zero(0).

Not suprising of the dailycaller, given that they have Ann Coulter in their ranks.

@RaceProUK Again, a rather broad brush. Cogent Social Sciences looks to me like those "Publish your own book and instantly become a multi-millionaire author!" services, only that they're advertising peer review on top.

Remember, if you're the sort of person who feels that buying peer reviews like that is worthwhile, you are indeed getting reviewed by your actual peers. Just not by the people you want to have as peers.

Graham Hancock (/ˈhænkɒk/; born 2 August 1950) is a British writer and reporter. Hancock specialises in unscientific theories involving ancient civilisations, stone monuments or megaliths, altered states of consciousness, ancient myths and astronomical and astrological data from the past.

His work is viewed as an example of pseudoarchaeology; his work has neither been peer reviewed nor published in academic journals.

Cogent Social Sciences looks to me like those "Publish your own book and instantly become a multi-millionaire author!"

I mean he publishes books about Atlantis or <insert fictional place>. The BBC (Panorama) had a program in the mid 90s about his Atlantis book, they had to have 2 episodes from proper archaeologist debunking it, because it was so misleading. None of it gets peered reviewed and then gets pissed off with archaeologists.

The scientist couldn't have foreseen the crisis his research would touch off.

This was an interesting article. Towards the end, they mention a paper that proves that listening to The Beatles' "When I'm 64" actually makes someone physically younger, all while using standard psychological study methods. The paper is an interesting read on how to inadvertently manipulate stats.

And so to say that it is a failure of peer review-- like they did with Wakefield-- also misses the point. Bem's peers are in absolutely no position to review this. This study is better reviewed by physicists. Bem himself makes an explicit case for quantum entanglement! So notwithstanding my own rants about peer review,

"Four reviewers made comments on the manuscript," [said the journal's editor] "and these are very trusted people."

Trusted though they may be, they are not experts in the field being studied.

All four decided that the paper met the journal's editorial standards, [the editor] added, even though "there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results."

Exactly. So you should have sent it to the physicists. You know, the ones who work a building over in the same university that you do. That was the whole reason for universities, right?

No, I'm a dummy. The purpose of universities is to suck up Stafford loan money. And the purpose of journals is to mark territory, more money in that, like a corporation that spins off a subsidiary. NO CROSS SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSION ALLOWED IN SCIENCE, EVER, EXCEPT IN SCIENCE, NATURE, AND THE POPULAR PRESS.

I'm sure most people who aren't in the "industry" have no idea about that sort of stuff.

exactly - the people that matter know whether crap is crap.

the idiot public at large wouldn't know their ass from a hole in the ground on most topics... and that doesn't matter unless the idiot public includes Politicians thinking "i science good" and trying to implement regulations/deregulations based on crap they read in the Daily Caller or see on FOX news.

and that doesn't matter unless the idiot public includes Politicians thinking "i science good" and trying to implement regulations/deregulations based on crap they read in the Daily Caller or see on FOX news.

@boomzilla i think i'm misunderstanding you.... or maybe you think a lot of dumb people are who I think matter? I don't know if that particular journals reviewers matter or not, but they were paid off to do it so it's irrelevant whether they matter - they're dishonest either way.